Gore calls for resignation of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and Tenet

Would you care to list the people in your universe whose speeches are worthy of notice/comment?

y'know, you're right. Maybe he's not ready for prime-time?

I'd start with ones that are currently relevant to the political process.

Yes, millions have voted for AlGore. Yes, millions probably think he's a swell guy. But does anyone seriously consider him a force in Democratic politics right now? Or is this just another gasping ploy for attention? This particular opinion of Gore's does not strike me as newsworthy at all. I'm sure he has equally compelling views on everything Bushco has done...why aren't we just getting a daily bulletin from the guy? Is there something about this that is particularly compelling to anyone? Does this fire up the Democratic base when he comes up with such insight?

His endorsement of Howard Dean pretty much helped wreck Dean's campaign, so yes.

This is a huge, open ended question that would require a lot more time than I have today. Because unlike some around here, a contrary opinion by me will ignite at least 3-4 other people immediately to start tearing at my argument. I just don't have the time for it right now...jesus hstencil I'm trying to keep up with you and juggle about a dozen other things the way it is.

Also, I did not recognize that the question was regarding Rummy, Wolf, Rice, & Tenet--I thought it was directed towards MoveOn.org and my opinion on that.

As for me turning this thread into an endorsement (or not) of a cult of personality, that's a huge stretch. What, I'm not allowed to question the intent or validity of the messenger?

But in general, I don't think Rice should resign. I'm not convinced Rummy should resign. I don't think Wolfowitz has been that great. Tenet has been average. But the details are pretty sketchy to begin with, as far as how much these characters have explicitly endorsed things like torture. If Rummy or anyone else explicitly wanted people tortured or lied about it, then they should resign. And yes, I fully expect the next 10 posts to be links showing how they all lied and once that happens I will fully endorse the genius of Albert Gore.

What?

It's about content, fine, but "context" shapes "content" too, and all I'm saying is that a Democrat attacking a Republican means something much different (much less, I think--I mean, much more obligatory and expected) than a Republican (or a conservative) attacking a Republican.

I'd be happy to admit that I'm wrong about Al Gore's influence on current Democratic politics if you could give me tangible examples of it. Do people go to him looking for advice? Is he considered a leader of the party in any way? Does he get asked to help raise campaign funds for the party by the party? Put another way--if Gore disappeared today, what would the impact on the party be?

In as much as Gore is a former VP, he probably still has very good access to publicity so of course that is valuable. But in terms of tangible impact--getting more Democrats elected--I fail to see him as instrumental.

http://www.enn.com/features/2000/01/01042000/gore2.jpg

But thank you for the internet.

Kris' question:
Don, all I'm saying is that you seem to be endorsing some kind of cult-of-personality politics when you have make no comment on this speech other than to question the relevance of the speaker. What about its content?

My answer, ten posts directly north of this post:
As for me turning this thread into an endorsement (or not) of a cult of personality, that's a huge stretch. What, I'm not allowed to question the intent or validity of the messenger?

But in general, I don't think Rice should resign. I'm not convinced Rummy should resign. I don't think Wolfowitz has been that great. Tenet has been average. But the details are pretty sketchy to begin with, as far as how much these characters have explicitly endorsed things like torture. If Rummy or anyone else explicitly wanted people tortured or lied about it, then they should resign. And yes, I fully expect the next 10 posts to be links showing how they all lied and once that happens I will fully endorse the genius of Albert Gore.

Or am I missing another question she asked, Tracer?

Again, his endorsement of Dean was huge Don. It had both a positive and a negative influence on the primary race, and probably had a bigger impact than "the scream" or any other tangible primary event on Dean's chances. I don't know why you keep choosing to conveniently ignore this, I've brought it up three times now.

Small point of clarification -- Kris is a guy.

Would you care to list the people in your universe whose speeches are worthy of notice/comment?

Any ideas yet?

What I'm hearing from you is essentially: "Gore, schmore - he's a blip, irrelevant" - classic spin, really, that allows you to evade the content of what he says. You are of course "allowed" to question the intent of the messenger. You are "allowed" to question Gore's "validity," whatever that might mean. Just as we are "allowed" to say you're evading the point, which is the content of what this guy said. Content that has, not incidentally, drawn responses from the Republican National Committee and the punditocracy in general. It appears that your contention that what Gore says doesn't matter is a minority opinion, which in this context makes your opinion.. wrong?

American politics is weird in that there's not a cohesive "buncha guys" that everybody knows like the back of their hand. With the death of the old-style political machines, where the party essentially got to choose the presumptive nominee, and without a parliamentary/prime-minister system like in the UK, where whoever the majority party is gets to choose the exec, presidential candidates come in from seemingly nowhere. There's no "shadow" government, with opposition counterparts to the incumbent cabinet posts. I think it's a real failing of the American system, actually.

Let us presume that Bush has this information already. Or let me put it another way, if Rumsfeld ordered or approved a policy of torturing Iraqi prisoners and Bush doesn't know about it beforehand, then something is seriously wrong with the Bush White House. And if Bush doesn't know now whether Rumsfeld ordered or approved this, then things are so seriously fucked up that it is hard to conceive.

In either case, Bush is in charge of this. He created it. He chose the people and he is standing shoulder to shoulder with them now - locked in to that position. By these words and actions, Bush is acting as Rumsfeld's guarantor - kind of like a co-signer on a loan. Bush is saying, in effect, "I absolutely, positively know Rumsfeld isn't responsible for this. You can believe it because you can believe me."

My question, dan, should you care to address it is: if there is persuasive evidence that Rumsfeld approved torture in Iraq, will you be satisfied with just Rumsfeld's resignation, or would you call for Bush to resign, too?

CNN Larry King Live, Aired February 3, 2004 - 21:00 ET

That he should call for these resignations may be partisan. Why, however, should the idea of accountability for prevarication or incompetence be considered a bad thing in a republic?

To what tangible evidence do you support this conclusion with? Is there polling data? Are there articles that would change my mind? Or is it just a bunch of voices here who are annoyed because I think Gore's opinion on this issue will have a totally insignificant impact on the future?

Would you care to list the people in your universe whose speeches are worthy of notice/comment?

I'm to answer questions that seem rhetorical or less than serious? Okay, let's start with members of Congress, add to that list people who are running for office, add to that legal experts, add to that military experts. Richard Clarke has a lot more weight on the subject than Al Gore.

It appears that your contention that what Gore says doesn't matter is a minority opinion, which in this context makes your opinion.. wrong?

The problem I have is not the content of what Gore said. My problem is that I do not find it even slightly newsworthy that he said it. It is not surprising, it is not compelling, it is not insightful. Gore is not an elected official, he's not running for office, and he has nothing to lose for speaking his mind. Someone please show me where Gore's statement will change anyone's opinion or spark any degree of change in the system. Because I think it won't, I do not see why anyone finds it interesting at all. I mean, did anyone find it newsworthy that Dan Quayle thought Clinton should resign? Does anyone find Dan Quayle significantly newsworthy at all? Yes, Quayle is a recognizable voice of conservatives, but that doesn't mean he has measurable influence.

My question, dan, should you care to address it is: if there is persuasive evidence that Rumsfeld approved torture in Iraq, will you be satisfied with just Rumsfeld's resignation, or would you call for Bush to resign, too?

I'd say there's circumstantial evidence right now that Rummy, at very least, didn't have his pulse on his leadership in Iraq. I think he should resign--actually, my preference would be that he be fired and prosecuted--if evidence becomes incontrovertible.

As for Bush resigning, no, I don't see that as reasonable right now. I didn't vote for the guy, don't think he's been a good president, and don't really care if he gets beat in November. He is responsible for the actions of those he has hired, but unless he has committed crimes or ethical lapses I don't see a case to demand his resignation. Yet.

You're right Don, Gore's endorsement of Dean had no impact whatsoever. That's why the Republican Presidential candidate from '96 commented on it on the Larry freakin' King Live show on the same day that seven states had their primaries.

dude, I know you can come up with something better than that. Sure it was newsworthy that Gore, the most recent presidential candidate, was making an early endorsement for Dean. But are you asserting that Gore is so radioactive that it turned everyone to Kerry?

"Well, my advice to Kerry and Edwards is, if Gore calls, don't take the call. I mean, it may be an endorsement."

Can you ever admit it when you're wrong, Don?

Why do you think we're annoyed? I'm annoyed only that I and other people are wasting time with this diversion. No one on this thread has stated that Gore's opinion will have a significant impact. I linked the article because I found it interesting that a former Vice President and Presidential candidate would speak out against our actions in Iraq with such vehemence and in the language of both religion and academe. Note the excerpt I chose. And surely you recognize that 1) there is a substantial difference in intellectual weight that Al Gore brings to a subject vs. what Dan Quayle does, 2) that the latter served a four-year term 12 years ago as opposed to the former's 8-year term less than four years ago, and 3) that only one of these men ran for (and was elected, many would say) President. The list of figures not even comparable to Gore whose opinions are given as much attention as Gore's was is quite lengthy.

I am, however, interested in why you find Gore so annoying.

I really don't find it significant at all that would-be heirs to the throne, one who lost a bitterly contested battle and one about to engage in one, would use any means necessary to make their case against the current officeholder. Maybe I'm a rube for not being stunned, maybe I'm just too uneducated for the weight of such language or references to move me. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to go back and look at all the eloquent arguments people were making for Clinton to resign. It all seems like politics as usual to me--if my head is in the sand on this, then so be it. If Democrats and liberals found those comments motivating--in the sense that they will act where they once wouldn't in significant numbers--then I'm wrong. Is Gore's pronouncement going to fuel the fire or make a difference? I kind of doubt it with the election so far off. But maybe I'm wrong.

which was my point. I come from the same place. However, the extent to which one likes or dislikes 'alpha males' need not relate directly to the extent to which one is one.

I really don't find it significant at all that would-be heirs to the throne, one who lost a bitterly contested battle and one about to engage in one, would use any means necessary to make their case against the current officeholder.

I don't see what Kerry has to do with any of this. In fact, reports are that he was pissed off by it. Perhaps that's some sort of triangulation, but I can see his point. I think of Gore as more a college professor or columnist than a politician these days and for the foreseeable future.

That was a really interesting tangent for a politician. It's a damn shame this speech didn't happen a month ago, I could have riffed on it for a whole term paper.. It's kind of great though, because dropping refs to Sade and Freud is weird enough that the right could try to turn it against him - but first they'd have to figure out an angle on it, and I really enjoy the idea of, like, Krauthammer trying to parse this and then his head explodes.

Oh, and for the record.. I find Gore kind of.. not annoying, but basically strange. Slightly off-key and maladroit. Watching Gore at political events is like watching a film and suddenly realizing a prominent cast member is, in fact, not a very good actor - and after that point it's painful because you are constantly aware that this person is permanently out of sync with the rest of the film. I don't think politics is really his vocation, he ought to just let it rip and be a preacher. I finally figured Dean was the same way - ready to go all Jonathan Edwards on people.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040528/ap_on_re_us/terror_threat&cid=519&ncid=716

Their separate public appearances left the impression that the broad and close interagency consultation we expect — and which the law requires — may not have taken place in this case," Cox said.

it's the wonk-hack distinction. with Clinton, we were just lucky enough to get both. with Kerry, we may succeed in finally having the voters turn away from personality.